zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. crop_r+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-18 00:59:38
The non profit is the majority owner of the for profit, and there is no investor pressure here to make billions.
replies(1): >>j45+R8
2. j45+R8[view] [source] 2023-11-18 01:51:18
>>crop_r+(OP)
Could that not change as the board changes?
replies(1): >>jprete+Ic
◧◩
3. jprete+Ic[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 02:17:48
>>j45+R8
I think the board is required to be a majority non-equity-holders precisely because an equity-holding board will not keep to their non-profit mission.
replies(1): >>j45+vJ1
◧◩◪
4. j45+vJ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 14:32:01
>>jprete+Ic
Since it's a private non-profit corp it might be whatever they want the rules to be.

Arms-length neutrality on a board in silicon valley might still work like the rest as other comments have stated. Maybe someone can shed some light on it

replies(1): >>jprete+MT1
◧◩◪◨
5. jprete+MT1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 15:35:48
>>j45+vJ1
I’m presuming it was put into place as part of creating the capped-for-profit entity, to make sure the for-profit couldn’t itself permanently misalign the non-profit’s board.
[go to top]